A heated legal tussle between the Indian government and social media giant X (formerly Twitter) intensified in the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday, July 1, 2025, over the interpretation and application of content takedown rules in India. The courtroom saw a flashpoint when a lawyer representing X referred to government officials issuing content removal orders as “every Tom, Dick, and Harry,” drawing a sharp rebuke from both the Solicitor General of India and the presiding judge.
The ongoing dispute centers on X’s challenge to what it describes as a government-run “censorship portal” – a platform that the company alleges empowers numerous government officials to issue content removal directives without proper legal safeguards. The Indian government, conversely, maintains that this website is merely a notification tool to ensure social media intermediaries comply with their due diligence obligations under Indian law.
The “Tom, Dick, and Harry” Controversy
During the hearing, Senior Advocate K.G. Raghavan, representing X, cited a recent notice from the Ministry of Railways demanding the removal of a video showing a woman driving a car on railway tracks in Hyderabad. Raghavan argued that while such content might be considered “news,” the government deemed it “unlawful.” He expressed concern that if “every Tom, Dick, and Harry officer is authorised” to issue such takedown orders, it could lead to misuse of powers and undermine due process.
This remark immediately drew strong condemnation from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union of India. Mehta retorted, “They are officers, not Tom, Dick, and Harry. They are statutory functionaries with legal authority. International entities should not display such arrogance.” Justice M. Nagaprasanna, the presiding judge, also took objection to the phrase, stating, “These are officers of the Union of India. I take objection to this.”
The Core of the Legal Battle
X’s legal challenge primarily seeks a declaration that Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, does not confer the authority to issue direct content blocking orders. The company argues that such orders must strictly follow the procedure outlined in Section 69A of the IT Act and its corresponding rules, which involve more stringent safeguards. X contends that the government’s current mechanism bypasses these constitutional protections and violates the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the landmark Shreya Singhal case (2015), which emphasized the need for judicial oversight in content blocking.
The Indian government, on its part, has consistently defended its content moderation framework as lawful and balanced. It argues that social media intermediaries cannot expect to operate without regulation, particularly in a critical market like India. The government asserts that the “Sahyog portal,” launched by the Ministry of Home Affairs, simply facilitates compliance with existing legal obligations and is not a tool for arbitrary censorship.
Implications and What’s Next
This legal confrontation is the latest in a series of escalating tensions between X and the Indian government over content moderation, a dispute that has been ongoing since 2021. The outcome of this case could significantly impact how social media platforms operate in India and the extent of governmental control over online content. It also comes at a crucial time when Elon Musk is actively pursuing the expansion of his other ventures, such as Starlink and Tesla, in the Indian market.
The Karnataka High Court has scheduled the final hearing for July 8, 2025, and has permitted X Corp to amend its petition to include various Union ministries as parties. The Union government has been directed to file its response before the next hearing. This highly anticipated decision will set a precedent for digital governance and freedom of expression in India’s rapidly expanding online landscape.
Key Highlights:
- The Karnataka High Court witnessed a tense exchange between the Indian government and X (formerly Twitter) over content takedown rules, escalated by X’s lawyer calling government officials “Tom, Dick, and Harry.”
- X is challenging what it terms a government “censorship portal,” arguing that it allows officials to issue content removal orders without proper legal safeguards under Section 69A of the IT Act.
- The government asserts its content moderation framework is lawful and that the portal merely ensures compliance, emphasizing that social media platforms cannot operate unregulated in India.
- The court has set a final hearing for July 8, 2025, with the outcome poised to significantly impact digital content governance and the operations of social media platforms in India.